Rick, you can report them for Child abuse. I'm not sure about R.I., but in KY if someone were to witness that, you can report them to Crimes against Children or some other place.
Anyone under the age of 18 is considered a child, sorry.
I am very much against any kind of abuse...no matter what you call it. Sure, spankings are one thing, but that's as far as it should go. The parents that hit a child in the face should be locked up at the minimum and definately have the child taken away from them only to reunite after some counseling.
Since none of us actually saw this 'beating' take place we don't really know if it was abuse, well deserved abuse (but still abuse) or the over-reaction of an overly sensitive observer.
If we're talking about the more general issue of spanking, well, some do and some don't. Some children need it and others don't; some teens need it too. As with many other things, this issue is always going to be accompanied by much ranting from advocates of either side, and little (if any) honest thinking. Rationalizing, yes, we're very good at that, but seldom do you find a community actually 'thinking' about something.
To start, we ought to think about the blanket assumption that violence is bad. That is not entirely accurate. Much of the context around violence produces what can be termed 'bad' and appreciated by any reasonable person as the 'immoral', 'wrong', 'evil', 'senseless', 'destructive'. However, closer interrogations of violence also invoke ideas such as 'protection' 'honor' 'strength' 'resistance' 'justice' -- within the same people that claim it is always 'bad'. Look at the rhetoric of war.
If there are good things about violence, or acceptable dosages, wouldn't it be better to get them at home?
Where we live children as young as 5 spit at passers by, shower them with a torrent of abuse, smash windows, burgle houses in braod daylight. One girl (about 12 or so) who has been a nightmare recently had to be restrained with CS Spray by police when they tried to arrest her just hours out of walking free from another court appearance. A lad from the nxt town has just been let off prison again becuase he is underage having stolen an estimated 150 cars. A boy in my road (aged 15) beat a 90 year old lady almost to death in her own home for 30p (.3 GBPounds). he was told not to be so naughty and then let off becuase nothing can be done becuase of his age. A social worker order was placed on him - 2 months later the social services took him on holiday to a theme park. last month a group of 8 or more youths under 18 chased and raped a 12 year old girl in a car park - they will not be punished.
I am the only coloured member of staff where I work and continually put up with the most vile racist abuse on a daily basis. My employer's response? You'll have to put up with it - we can't do a thing to these kids.
Why?
Because when asked these kids will tell you that adults can't lay a finger on them so they can do what the f*ck they like.
I was a teenager not very long agao - and from a poor ethinic minority family. I never behaved in this way. Mind you if I did my father would probably have put me in hospital. . .
Its actually illegal to carry any weapon in the UK. In fact, anything that can be construed as a weapon is also banned so you can be stopped by police for carrying a screwdriver without a good reason. Kids routinely carry all manner of weapons becuase they know they can't be touched. Just last month I had a student who came to college with a snooker ball in a sock "just in case". A guy from a nearby town last week saw three boys vandalising a parked car and tried as a good citizen to stop them. They gave him a load of abuse and a passer by then berated him for antagonising the kids!
There have recent cases of people in the middle of town being shot in the head by young kids just for their mobile phones!
I talked to a friend in family court about this and there's nothing they can do unless there are obvoius marks of serious injury,i.e. like a broken cheekbone or something on that level,basically it is legal to beat your kids.The worst possible thing this girl could have been doing was mouthing off to her mother,and possibly not even that.She was a really shy,passive girl,not the type to carry knives or vandalize cars.
People have an inherent right to NOT have the shit beaten out of them.
No offense to you personally, but I don't think most libertarians are actually that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a libertarian I think that the parents are the ones who should decide when their children are old enough to take care of their own. Before this it is their responsability, not the government's.
I believe that violence is only a reasonable way to deal with problems after all other avenues have been exhasuted.
Now, we don't know the story of this woman and her daughter, so I can't say whether it was right for the mother to strike.
I gotta disagree with another statement made in this thread : not ALL teenage girls are dangerous on the road. I have been driven by one, ONE, 17-year old girl who was actually dangerous, but perhaps a dozen dangerous boys.
The insurance companies are onto something : young males are most dangerous, then old females, then young females.
By far, teenage boys are more of a vehicular menace than teenage girls.
I come back to the question of whether violence is really wrong. It seems that both socially and intimately certain 'violent' acts are formative/foundational/neccessary? Of course this is probably a far too abstracted consideration of 'violence' but nonetheless we generally seem a little hypocritical in our stand on violence -- we denounce it everywhere, yet use it everywhere.
I don't understand this "as a libertarian" stuff. The way you use it suggests that we should know exactly what you mean when you say it, and what the content of your beliefs are, but it doesn't do any of that.
Libertarianism as a normative principle around which a discussion is based is generally unhelpful (even moreso than "democrat" or "republican") because it is not self-defining. Who defines which rights are intrinsic to people, eh? Well, you do of course (at least most libertarians I've met like to define their own rights - the only role for the government is as "nightwatchman".) Even if you try to rely on some natural rights theory, or rights vested in a document you still define your rights for yourself (life, liberty, property - well, I'm pretty sure property isn't limited to real property, but how big is that class and what does it contain?). You can look in the bible, the constitution, wherever you want, there is no comprehensive list of rights anywhere, only vague "areas" of liberty. W/o government to define the content of those rights, we're left w/ self-serving personal whim (which of course is rational, but not necessarily beneficial in a society of people each w/ different goals). So, my rights are limited by your conception of your rights, and yours are limited by my personal conception of my rights. A dialogue b/w these two people would be fruitless b/c there's really no meta-principle that bridges the two conceptions. That's why we HAVE a government - in order to provide content to these areas of liberty - and importantly, a government based on the consent of the governed. Libertarian principles are important in a free society, but they cannot be the entire basis of that society.
Too make a bland assertion that "I have more rights to do with my child what I choose than does the government" cannot be termed truly libertarian, as John Stuart Mill would have used it, b/c it is completely insensitive to the rights of another person, herself being possessed of rights, and it is also unhelpful - its almost a non-sequitur. True libertarianism is sorely concerned w/ protecting not only your personal rights, but also the rights of others. Children are not chattle. No right is absolute, not even in a libertarian conception. Furthermore, of course you have more rights than the government - the government has no right to custody of your child w/o legal process, for example, but that says nothing about your rights vis-a-vis beating your child. Lastly, the view of libertarianism most frequently encountered, that of individual rights only, is way too cramped. There is room in classical libertarian thought for societal rights - as opposed to a government vs. the individual concept.
As I always suggest to people who claim to be libertarian, you should read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill b/4 you adopt the moniker "Libertarian." Also, you might want to pick up and read anything of the Critical Legal Studies movement's treatment of libertarianism. It might open your eyes as to the usefulness of that philosphy in a working society.
As an aside, I find most people who call themselves libertarian are really western Republicans. That's not pejorative, just an observation.
Exactly.And I'm not part of the government.What I witnessed was an assault,it wasn't just someone slapping an uppity teenager,it was bad enough that if it had continued I would have jumped out of my car to pull the woman off her daughter.
As a libertarian I think that the parents are the ones who should decide when their children are old enough to take care of their own. Before this it is their responsability, not the government's.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You give a bad name to libertarians everywhere. That's not what libertarianism is all about. It's about the government having a limited role in a few key areas *INCLUDING* protection of its citizens. That *INCLUDES* stopping whacked out parents that beat their children. To hell with you.
[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
Comments
Anyone under the age of 18 is considered a child, sorry.
I am very much against any kind of abuse...no matter what you call it. Sure, spankings are one thing, but that's as far as it should go. The parents that hit a child in the face should be locked up at the minimum and definately have the child taken away from them only to reunite after some counseling.
If we're talking about the more general issue of spanking, well, some do and some don't. Some children need it and others don't; some teens need it too. As with many other things, this issue is always going to be accompanied by much ranting from advocates of either side, and little (if any) honest thinking. Rationalizing, yes, we're very good at that, but seldom do you find a community actually 'thinking' about something.
To start, we ought to think about the blanket assumption that violence is bad. That is not entirely accurate. Much of the context around violence produces what can be termed 'bad' and appreciated by any reasonable person as the 'immoral', 'wrong', 'evil', 'senseless', 'destructive'. However, closer interrogations of violence also invoke ideas such as 'protection' 'honor' 'strength' 'resistance' 'justice' -- within the same people that claim it is always 'bad'. Look at the rhetoric of war.
If there are good things about violence, or acceptable dosages, wouldn't it be better to get them at home?
I am the only coloured member of staff where I work and continually put up with the most vile racist abuse on a daily basis. My employer's response? You'll have to put up with it - we can't do a thing to these kids.
Why?
Because when asked these kids will tell you that adults can't lay a finger on them so they can do what the f*ck they like.
I was a teenager not very long agao - and from a poor ethinic minority family. I never behaved in this way. Mind you if I did my father would probably have put me in hospital. . .
That's frightening.
Are you guys allowed to carry any weapons at all in merry old England?
There have recent cases of people in the middle of town being shot in the head by young kids just for their mobile phones!
Its madness.
<strong>
A 16/17 year old isn't a child. #1.
People have an inherent right to NOT have the shit beaten out of them.
No offense to you personally, but I don't think most libertarians are actually that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a libertarian I think that the parents are the ones who should decide when their children are old enough to take care of their own. Before this it is their responsability, not the government's.
Now, we don't know the story of this woman and her daughter, so I can't say whether it was right for the mother to strike.
I gotta disagree with another statement made in this thread : not ALL teenage girls are dangerous on the road. I have been driven by one, ONE, 17-year old girl who was actually dangerous, but perhaps a dozen dangerous boys.
The insurance companies are onto something : young males are most dangerous, then old females, then young females.
I come back to the question of whether violence is really wrong. It seems that both socially and intimately certain 'violent' acts are formative/foundational/neccessary? Of course this is probably a far too abstracted consideration of 'violence' but nonetheless we generally seem a little hypocritical in our stand on violence -- we denounce it everywhere, yet use it everywhere.
Libertarianism as a normative principle around which a discussion is based is generally unhelpful (even moreso than "democrat" or "republican") because it is not self-defining. Who defines which rights are intrinsic to people, eh? Well, you do of course (at least most libertarians I've met like to define their own rights - the only role for the government is as "nightwatchman".) Even if you try to rely on some natural rights theory, or rights vested in a document you still define your rights for yourself (life, liberty, property - well, I'm pretty sure property isn't limited to real property, but how big is that class and what does it contain?). You can look in the bible, the constitution, wherever you want, there is no comprehensive list of rights anywhere, only vague "areas" of liberty. W/o government to define the content of those rights, we're left w/ self-serving personal whim (which of course is rational, but not necessarily beneficial in a society of people each w/ different goals). So, my rights are limited by your conception of your rights, and yours are limited by my personal conception of my rights. A dialogue b/w these two people would be fruitless b/c there's really no meta-principle that bridges the two conceptions. That's why we HAVE a government - in order to provide content to these areas of liberty - and importantly, a government based on the consent of the governed. Libertarian principles are important in a free society, but they cannot be the entire basis of that society.
Too make a bland assertion that "I have more rights to do with my child what I choose than does the government" cannot be termed truly libertarian, as John Stuart Mill would have used it, b/c it is completely insensitive to the rights of another person, herself being possessed of rights, and it is also unhelpful - its almost a non-sequitur. True libertarianism is sorely concerned w/ protecting not only your personal rights, but also the rights of others. Children are not chattle. No right is absolute, not even in a libertarian conception. Furthermore, of course you have more rights than the government - the government has no right to custody of your child w/o legal process, for example, but that says nothing about your rights vis-a-vis beating your child. Lastly, the view of libertarianism most frequently encountered, that of individual rights only, is way too cramped. There is room in classical libertarian thought for societal rights - as opposed to a government vs. the individual concept.
As I always suggest to people who claim to be libertarian, you should read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill b/4 you adopt the moniker "Libertarian." Also, you might want to pick up and read anything of the Critical Legal Studies movement's treatment of libertarianism. It might open your eyes as to the usefulness of that philosphy in a working society.
As an aside, I find most people who call themselves libertarian are really western Republicans. That's not pejorative, just an observation.
Thoth
Children are not chattle.
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly.And I'm not part of the government.What I witnessed was an assault,it wasn't just someone slapping an uppity teenager,it was bad enough that if it had continued I would have jumped out of my car to pull the woman off her daughter.
<strong>
As a libertarian I think that the parents are the ones who should decide when their children are old enough to take care of their own. Before this it is their responsability, not the government's.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You give a bad name to libertarians everywhere. That's not what libertarianism is all about. It's about the government having a limited role in a few key areas *INCLUDING* protection of its citizens. That *INCLUDES* stopping whacked out parents that beat their children. To hell with you.
[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>